NASDA Highlights Farm Bill Recommendations Support For Modifying Federal Biotechnology Programs

News Date March 12, 2007

The presence of biotechnology products in the marketplace, coupled with the disparate status of regulatory approvals in world markets, and the changing patterns of consumer acceptance, has introduced great complexity to the U.S. bulk commodity handling system, presenting the trade with a major management challenge. No longer can farmers plant seed and assume the harvested product will be accepted universally by all buyers or under traditional terms and conditions. 

The impact on the industry illustrates the urgent need to develop an internationally accepted certified marketing system based on sound-science and effective in meeting consumer preferences which can assure that biotechnology-enhanced products will reach appropriate markets. As new varieties become available it will become more important to have instituted, prior to commercialization, a proven channeling/segregation/certification program guaranteeing that domestic and international marketing standards for agricultural products are met. Such a system will be necessary to provide customers with the products they desire while supporting the development, production, and promotion of crops that are acceptable to domestic and foreign customers; however, the system should not be misused to create unfair trade barriers. Guidelines may be needed to assure safety and quality; however, they may also result in missed opportunities for social benefits from future agricultural products. Market standards must be set at levels that are attainable and feasible for seed production, commercial production, storage, transportation, and processing. Farmers must have information and tools available; e.g., planting and handling protocols, that allow them to develop on-farm practices to meet specific marketing standards.

While the major oversight of agriculture biotech crops/products rests with the federal government, states have been drawn into the fray. The highly visible miscues; e.g., StarLink, ProdiGene, Bt 10, Cheniere LL601 rice and Clearfield CL131 rice, continue to draw attention to the federal regulatory process. Most states do not have concurrent regulatory approval processes for biotech crops; however, all states have partnership programs dealing with plant pests, pesticides and food safety. Since Washington, D.C., seems--or is--a long way from farm fields, states' officials are frequently asked to comment on the mishaps. If states are to avoid duplicative regulatory programs, the federal process must find more and important ways to involve the states. One method is to create a federal office to assure communications, cooperation and coordination of information among and between federal and state agencies.

Recommended Actions: 
1. NASDA recommends establishing an office of intergovernmental coordination within the White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy or similar oversight/coordinating agency responsible for transferring appropriate information and improving communications between federal agencies, responsible for regulation of products of agricultural biotechnology, and state agencies that share concurrent responsibilities for the regulation of conventional or organic products at the state level, e. g., products regulated under state seed, plant pest, pesticide or food authorities. Confidential information that is protected under federal law and is transferred through this office to a state agency shall be held confidential by the states. 
2. In addition, this office will function as an ombudsman for state agriculture regulatory agencies seeking information, clarification or assistance regarding federal action(s) or lack of action(s) on issues of concern to state agriculture regulatory agencies and be responsible for communications and coordination. 
3. Funding for positions to assure adequate communications and coordination are needed, along with additional funding and positions at the three primary lead federal agencies (USDA, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)) to assure proper inspection and enforcement. States should be provided the opportunity to augment the federal inspection and investigation activities through memoranda of agreement. (Contact: Bob Ehart)